ESPN: Should athletes be compensated?

[ouflak]

Interesting story with several polls relevant to recent events such as the NCAA's multi-hundred million dollar merchandising deals and the recent payment scandals.

Should athletes be compensated? (http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/post/_/id/6772806/should-college-athletes-compensated)

I've already, in my typical thread-ending fashion, made my own point of view known here (http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3253276#post3253276). To quote:



...

If people want college sports to somehow be the last bastion for this fantasy of 'amateurism', ok fine. Fight the good fight to the end. In my heart, I empathize with the spirit competing just for the sake of competion, of pride in one's school, charitiable entertainment of fans, brotherhood among athletes. But those who feel this way should realize that they've already lost several critical opening battles in that fight with the plethora of multi-billion dollar TV deals made with schools and conferences; coaches and sports department administrators being paid hundreds of thousands, even millions of dollars per year.

Certain interests with a financial stake in the matter (NCAA, bowl officials, pro agents) are trying to keep that flow of money from getting to the athletes. But it's sort of like trying to build a dam to stop an oncoming tsunami. You just can't build one big enough. You just can't build one fast enough. There's just too much money coming in, and more coming in after that. And the athletes are right smack in the path of that tsunami of money.

...

[sooner_born_1960]

They are compensated.

[badger]

Whoever brought this debate to the forefront choose a poor time to do it --- when people have massive debt these days, it's usually from one of the following:

1- Medical emergencies
2- House/car payments
3- College

We are past the early 90s now, so there's no more getting college free by declaring bankruptcy on your student loans anymore. If you're lucky enough to have been able to make it through college without massive student loans, you are the few and fortunate.

[REDREX]

If we pay them we should be able to trade them

[vtsooner21]

Scholarships are a way of compesating for the hard work performed both on the athletic fields or in academics. I can certainly understand said value in scholarships as I am presently in the process of putting my sons through college. If there are those who believe scholarship athletes are not handsomely compensated, try looking at college costs...
Boomer

[OUTrumpet]

I don't really understand how this is even remotely feasible. This was brought up about a month ago on the Gotliebb show on ESPN radio.

How do you draw the line on this issue? If you pay 1 men's sport, you have to pay a women's sport due to Title 9. So if you pay football and basketball, you have to pay 2 ladies athletics. And how do determine which ladies sports? Eventually, it would end up for legal reasons all men's and all women's sports would need to be compensated. Would break down to a ridiculous amount of money each year.

I forget the exact amount, but it came down to just a handful of schools in each BCS conference being able to afford it. Forget the mid-majors. It was close to a billion a year This isn't a feasible solution.

How could we make schools like Ball State, North Texas, and Middle Tennessee State afford something that would be not feasible for KSU, KU, TTU? The NCAA will never approve it unless there is a level playing field. Probably add everyone in the Big 12 save for Texas and maybe Oklahoma, maybe A&M.

As of right now, these students receive free university housing, tuition, books, food, and some of the best tutors the schools have to offer. All they have to pair for at the minimum is a trip up to campus and a trip home. The students don't really need anything extra.

[Mongo]

They are compensated.

not enough. tell the ncaa to not limit the amount a student athlete can make in his side jobs, then I will agree with you

[sooner518]

I don't really understand how this is even remotely feasible. This was brought up about a month ago on the Gotliebb show on ESPN radio.

How do you draw the line on this issue? If you pay 1 men's sport, you have to pay a women's sport due to Title 9. So if you pay football and basketball, you have to pay 2 ladies athletics. And how do determine which ladies sports? Eventually, it would end up for legal reasons all men's and all women's sports would need to be compensated. Would break down to a ridiculous amount of money each year.

I forget the exact amount, but it came down to just a handful of schools in each BCS conference being able to afford it. Forget the mid-majors. It was close to a billion a year This isn't a feasible solution.

How could we make schools like Ball State, North Texas, and Middle Tennessee State afford something that would be not feasible for KSU, KU, TTU? The NCAA will never approve it unless there is a level playing field. Probably add everyone in the Big 12 save for Texas and maybe Oklahoma, maybe A&M.

As of right now, these students receive free university housing, tuition, books, food, and some of the best tutors the schools have to offer. All they have to pair for at the minimum is a trip up to campus and a trip home. The students don't really need anything extra.
this^
it'd be nice, but you'd have to pay all the players who are in non-revenue generating sports, which is not realistic at all

[Soonerfan88]

No one is forcing them to be there. If they don't feel a free college degree w/room & board and all books paid is good enough or the workouts/meetings/practices are too much, they can just walk away.


And, IMO, actually paying them will only make the corruption easier to hide and become bigger than it already is.

[Dan Thompson]

I got my degree in California, with no extra class units and no debt.

I drove 65 miles one way, every day, 5 days a week.

I was married and had one kid and no job.

So what. I don't think its a big deal.

[ouflak]

I don't really understand how this is even remotely feasible. This was brought up about a month ago on the Gotliebb show on ESPN radio.

How do you draw the line on this issue? If you pay 1 men's sport, you have to pay a women's sport due to Title 9.

This is just a point I wish to refute right on early in this thread.

Title 9 says *nothing* about how having students who are paid in one sport requires having students in another sport likewise be paid. I would think that is obvious from the fact that *no* student athletes are allowed access any slice of the ever growing revenues (billions and growing) these sports are generating. In other words, they aren't paid now, so there is no rule at the moment to handle this contingency.

One might argue that any lawsuit, resulting in a change of the wording of Title 9, might later change that. Perhaps, but I think that lawsuit will fail due to the simple and obvious logic of why women in the WNBA are not paid the same as their male counterparts in the NBA, and fail quickly.

[sooner_born_1960]

not enough. tell the ncaa to not limit the amount a student athlete can make in his side jobs, then I will agree with you
But see, they have to police that. Otherwise players like Landry Jones's side job would be media relations for Chesapeake at about 300k doll hairs, or some such nonsense.

[Mad Dog Madsen]

I got my degree in California, with no extra class units and no debt.

I drove 65 miles one way, every day, 5 days a week.

I was married and had one kid and no job.

So what. I don't think its a big deal.

Not everybody has rich parents though... :D

[ouflak]

But see, they have to police that. Otherwise players like Landry Jones's side job would be media relations for Chesapeake at about 300k doll hairs, or some such nonsense.

But why do they have to police that? Why shouldn't Landry Jones be able to market himself for whatever he can get? I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but why should the NCAA be the only one to profit, and profit VERY handsomely to the tune of hundreds of millions a year and growing, from the marketing of these athletes?

[Mongo]

But see, they have to police that. Otherwise players like Landry Jones's side job would be media relations for Chesapeake at about 300k doll hairs, or some such nonsense.

free market economy

[Breadburner]

No.....

[ouflak]

Let me just add, in a blatant move of flagrant corruption, that everybody who agrees with me is being compensated with compensation spek. ;)

Carry on...

[soonermix]

you are right ouflak!!!

[OUTrumpet]

This is just a point I wish to refute right on early in this thread.

Title 9 says *nothing* about how having students who are paid in one sport requires having students in another sport likewise be paid. I would think that is obvious from the fact that *no* student athletes are allowed access any slice of the ever growing revenues (billions and growing) these sports are generating. In other words, they aren't paid now, so there is no rule at the moment to handle this contingency.

One might argue that any lawsuit, resulting in a change of the wording of Title 9, might later change that. Perhaps, but I think that lawsuit will fail due to the simple and obvious logic of why women in the WNBA are not paid the same as their male counterparts in the NBA, and fail quickly.

The difference between the WNBA/NBA case and college students is that professional sports are business, while the vast majority of students are for public institutions.

Title 9 states that they have to provide a fair balance. It's already been settled if they start paying some men's sports, they will have to pay an equal number of women's sports. But how do you be consistent? OU would probably take women's b-ball and softball, seeing how we're always highly ranked and so on. But what about UCLA, who would probably take volleyball? What about Baylor, who would probably want baseball thrown in the mix. What about Okie St who would want rastlin' included.

It's an incredibly slippery slope.

And it's not like they absolutely cannot work. There are times throughout the year that a student athlete may have legitimate employment, like summer breaks.

[OUTrumpet]

But why do they have to police that? Why shouldn't Landry Jones be able to market himself for whatever he can get? I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but why should the NCAA be the only one to profit, and profit VERY handsomely to the tune of hundreds of millions a year and growing, from the marketing of these athletes?

I honestly believe the NCAA is crooked in regards to this. They shouldn't profit at all. Pay their employees and split up the rest of the revenue. More of the money should go back to the institutions, which can help in so many ways.

[Soonerson1975]

I think they should get a percentage of the gate only if they win the game. Lose and get nothing.

[SoCaliSooner]

I think it's a bad idea. Who determines the amount? Who's to say a school like Texas offers a recruit money to sign, but now offers a kid money just to NOT sign with OU.

Whatever a kid is getting paid it just opens the door for more scandal and policing.

[Scott D]

meh, considering how much of the money brought in for football can make a break an entire athletic department's budget.

There was an interesting quote a few months back from the Michigan AD about how much it costs per player on scholarship for their time at the school. And basically, I would say that if that amount of money was applied to the average student they'd have not only no problem graduating on time, but they could afford at least two years of medical or law school as well.

[ouflak]

Right.

So just so we are clear, let's just quote the law as it stand right now...

"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Again, there is nothing in this law, or its current interpretation that states anything at all about the paying of student athletes, much less paying them equally. Please keep in mind that student athletes are not allowed to be paid at this time. All of that money goes to the NCAA or the the university, or merchandisers, or licensing companies, or coaches, sports administrators, or agents, etc....


The difference between the WNBA/NBA case and college students is that professional sports are business, while the vast majority of students are for public institutions.

And I think this is a pure beautiful point. If college sports was truly amateur then I believe the following conditions would have to be met:


All NCAA officials only make minimum wage and are only allowed to work 20 hours work supplementary employment
Coaches only make minimum wage and are only allowed to work 20 hours supplementary employment
Athletic department administrators and employees only make minimum wage and are only allowed 20 hours supplementary employment
All revenues from licensing and merchandising deals go straight into collegiate student/research funds


As things are now, students are still expected to get the same college scholarship they have been getting for the last 80 years. Everybody else involved in the business is making obscene amounts more in comparison and growing. I think we can safely say that college sports is BIG time professional now.



Title 9 states ....

See the quote above. I'm hoping we can get past this Title IX stuff. There is nothing in it about students being paid for their work. Not yet anyway....

[agoo758]

Athlete's should get paid, and I think that it should get paid like a commission. A certain percentage shall be given to the players from whatever revenue is generated for the games )includes tickets, merchandise, concessions, etc.) With the players that plays the most minutes at each positions gets paid the most, with back ups and third strings getting a little less.

[badger]

I guess it depends on where the money comes from to see if it would fall under "Federal financial assistance" or not.

Sooo... where would they get the money to pay players?

1- Most athletic departments don't make money.
2- The academic side often closes the gap when athletics are not self supporting.
3- Boosters alone never carry an entire athletic department budget.

There's three places that they could get money from to pay players, all of which sound like really bad ideas:

1- Tickets, which are already expensive. Merchandise, which can also be pricey if you want the newest Nike crap. Concessions at events, which is already overpriced.

Some places are not OU and are trying their best to get butts in seats at giant football stadiums. Some places like OU can't get butts in seats at basketball games. Raising prices on tickets, merchandise and concessions is not going to keep fans coming to events or bring new fans in.

2- Raise tuition and fees. Considering how high tuition already is and how much debt students and their families are taking on to pay for college as-is... hehehehehehe. Tuition and fees is already funding athletics at many schools as-is.

No. No. No. This would NEVER work.

3- Booster help.

The NCAA is going to be in hell if that happens.

[sperry]

To me, it's just ridiculous. After these kids graduate college there is a market for their services. Oklahoma is one of, if not the most, succesful program going right now. On average, we have maybe 2 or 3 players per year who in a free market can get paid for their football skills. And we are the best of the best! So, on the best team in college football, there are about 10 out of 85 guys that can make a legitimate claim that they deserve to be paid in addition to the valuable college scholarship they are receiving. When you go down to lower programs like Kansas or Southern Miss or Cincinatti, or whatever, the number becomes something like 1-3 players. Then you consider every other sport, and the number becomes 0.

[OUTrumpet]

Originally Posted by Title IX
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Right there is what gets you. Football starts getting benefits, so do the ladies.


There was an interesting quote a few months back from the Michigan AD about how much it costs per player on scholarship for their time at the school. And basically, I would say that if that amount of money was applied to the average student they'd have not only no problem graduating on time, but they could afford at least two years of medical or law school as well.

Just to let you know, an athletic scholarship at UT is $120,000 a year. A&M is $95,000. OU is in the same ballpark. TCU is $88,000. TTU is $90,000.

[ouflak]

Originally Posted by Title IX
"No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance..."

Right there is what gets you. Football starts getting benefits, so do the ladies.

Ok, for you and Badger, a simple and obvious scenario that's already been brought up in this thread. Landry Jones markets the use of his image and does some commercials and pulls in about 300k a year for 3 of the 4 years of his attendance at OU. He also signs on board with a group contract made with the football program and all of the players for bonuses regarding the financial success of said football program in a given year. How do you interpret Title 9 to mean that any other athletes, male or female, have to be paid the same amounts of money for these kind of arrangements? The current NCAA interpretation of this law doesn't even *allow* students to be paid in any way whatsoever! I can certainly see the argument that all other athletes in other sports should have exactly the same freedom to enter into similar respective agreements. That's obvious and fair. That's just free market as Mongo put it earlier. But I just don't see where Title 9 applies here.

If they decided to double the value of scholarships for any group, you are bang on. It is again obvious. But we're talking about some kind of business compensation for their efforts to the success of that business. A business which is getting more money poured into it all of the time with more on the way, I might add. And for which a whole lot of other people are being properly compensated, I might also add.

[sooner_born_1960]

Just to let you know, an athletic scholarship at UT is $120,000 a year. A&M is $95,000. OU is in the same ballpark. TCU is $88,000. TTU is $90,000.
Are you sure of that? Tuition, fees, books, room and board at OU is about $16,000 per year. What is the other $79,000?

[badger]

Are you sure of that? Tuition, fees, books, room and board at OU is about $16,000 per year. What is the other $79,000?

Athletic equipment, athletic facilities, academic advising including tutors, classroom checkers and nerds who complete their homework for them, travel costs, meals (and not the crap they serve the rest of the students either), etc.

It probably would come out a lot higher. I don't see OU doing anything football-wise on the cheap ever. That underwater treadmill I think was a million bucks.

Also, the highest regarded professors of football knowledge in the world :D

[the-rover]

College athletes on scholarship are being paid. It's called an education.

If you think the NCAA has a case of the have's vs. have nots, what do you think will happen if they decide to legally pay athletes?

Why can't the families of these athletes continue to pay for whatever they might need while they are in college? It's not like they are paying for anything else. What did they do for cash before they got to college?

My kids are on academic scholarships, they don't have time for a job either. How do you think they get a little cash in their pocket for a pizza or a movie? I give it to them. I have to pay for their books, board, fees, I make their car payments and insurance, I give them anything they need to be good students.

What would they do if they didn't have me giving them money? They would get a loan. That's what the majority of college students do. I'm sure an athlete can get one too.

[BermudaSooner]

But why do they have to police that? Why shouldn't Landry Jones be able to market himself for whatever he can get? I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here, but why should the NCAA be the only one to profit, and profit VERY handsomely to the tune of hundreds of millions a year and growing, from the marketing of these athletes?

This is correct. This is America--we don't limit salaries of rock stars, teachers or CEOs---why college athletes?

In professional sports we agree to limit ourselves to the aggregate amount we can pay players, and in some cases like the NBA how much we pay individual players, but that is purely for competitive reasons.

Now, if we want to limit how much a player can earn in college for competitive reasons, then why then does a player for Stanford get "paid" 4 times as much (or whatever the figure is) than a player for OU? His scholarship is worth that much more.

And as for every other sport getting paid...uh no. I was a fairly competent college athlete---on the track team. Did I expect to get paid? Of course not--in fact the money I did get was a whole lot more money than the "value" I brought to the University in terms of asses in the seats. (Although I did puke right on the longhorn at Texas Relays one year--that was valuable).

Everybody that says "they get paid enough" should think about what the American dream is all about. It isn't about you got something and so I'm jealous and want to take it from you.

[BermudaSooner]

To me, it's just ridiculous. After these kids graduate college there is a market for their services. Oklahoma is one of, if not the most, succesful program going right now. On average, we have maybe 2 or 3 players per year who in a free market can get paid for their football skills. And we are the best of the best! So, on the best team in college football, there are about 10 out of 85 guys that can make a legitimate claim that they deserve to be paid in addition to the valuable college scholarship they are receiving. When you go down to lower programs like Kansas or Southern Miss or Cincinatti, or whatever, the number becomes something like 1-3 players. Then you consider every other sport, and the number becomes 0.

I don't think anyone is saying "pay them all." You pay for performance and what you can afford. Tom Brady gets paid 50 times the minimum NFL salary--he is worth it. Landry would be worth paying--the third string special teams guy is not.

[Scott D]

Just to let you know, an athletic scholarship at UT is $120,000 a year. A&M is $95,000. OU is in the same ballpark. TCU is $88,000. TTU is $90,000.

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Using the baseline number, schools are investing close to $500k for a player going through the system for a five year period including a redshirt. I don't think people that argue for "pay for play" ever really crunch the financials of the investments into those players.

The players who are going for the outside allowances aren't required to go off campus to find an apartment, they are doing it of their own volition. If that apartment costs more than their housing allowance, that isn't the fault of the University in any way, shape, or form.

[Mongo]

sounds like some people here should have played better in high school

[Soonerfan88]

I honestly believe the NCAA is crooked in regards to this. They shouldn't profit at all. Pay their employees and split up the rest of the revenue. More of the money should go back to the institutions, which can help in so many ways.

For the most part, it does. You can complain about the salaries of some of the NCAA folks, but really most of the money is benefiting the schools.


96 percent of NCAA revenue benefits the membership through distributions or services

The 96 percent figure includes:

• Division I distributions (60 percent)

• Championships (13 percent)

• Programs and national office services (19 percent)

• Other services (such as the Eligibility Center) (4 percent)

To be clear, the 96 percent includes much of the national office’s expenses (including salaries), which are housed in programmatic budgets. The 4 percent that remains is for central services, such as building operations and salaries not related to particular programs.

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/answers/nine+points+to+consider_one

[AlboSooner]

like, more?

[OUTrumpet]

Are you sure of that? Tuition, fees, books, room and board at OU is about $16,000 per year. What is the other $79,000?

I just know the amount based on paperwork I've seen for the school I coach for. Don't know how they estimate it. I've seen schollies from UT, TTU, A&M, an offer from OU, Bama, TCU, and others.

And as for the scenario with Landry, at this point he can't accept money for anything he does like that for that exact reason.

[goingoneight]

Somehow, I don't see anyone outside of a select ten to twelve teams being able to pull in the talent they want if it came down to paying players and/or letting them market themselves. That's what this all boils down to. Boise State would be no more and even OU would take a bit of a hit when compared to moneymaker rival Texas. They get enough already. I could see there being an argument for like future health benefits and whatnot like the NFL players are lobbying for. Adrian Taylor, Ryan Reynolds and Jason White are gonna be some sore fellas one day when they're older from all their CFB injuries.

[agoo758]

1- Most athletic departments don't make money.



I have never understood why this is an issue in college athletics and not in every other aspect of life. If your sport makes money, great. If it doesn't, then the athletes don't get paid. In America if you don't make money, then you don't make money. Simple as that. People need to learn at a very young age that if you want to make money doing something that you love, then you need to learn something that sells. If you want to train your whole life to be a world class water polo player instead of a football star, than you have the right to do that, but don't go whining about inequality when you find out what you should have found out a long time ago: your skill wasn't marketable then, and it isn't marketable now.

[ouflak]

That's pretty much what I was getting at. Using the baseline number, schools are investing close to $500k for a player going through the system for a five year period including a redshirt. I don't think people that argue for "pay for play" ever really crunch the financials of the investments into those players.

So I just want to make sure I'm following the logic here.


It costs a lot of money to support a college football player, an NFL player, a college basketball player, an NHL player, etc...
Because of the investments per player, the financial aspects of even having these teams is prohibitive.
Therefore, none of these players should be paid for their work because of the required investment. They should just be happy with room & board, equipment and tutoring (if applicable).
However coaches, athletic department administrators, owners, merchandisers, licensing companies, the NCAA, NFL, MLB, etc... should be able to make whatever revenues they can generate, in ever increasing amounts, without restriction.


Am I following this logic correctly? If I am, I think the owners in the current NBA lockout would love to have you on their side of the negotiations right now!

[ouflak]

For the most part, it does. You can complain about the salaries of some of the NCAA folks, but really most of the money is benefiting the schools.


I don't think anybody is specifically complaining about the salaries of the employees of the NCAA corporation. Hey I'm sure they are just as hardworking people as any of us posting here and the athletes performing on the field, and likewise, are compensated appropriately for it, just as they should be.

I think the issue here is that the NCAA is constantly entering into ever more lucrative licensing and merchandising agreements based on the performance (and likenesses and images) of their main asset, college athletes, yet hypocritically insisting that those same athletes are not allowed to do the exact same for themselves. I'm fairly certain such ridiculous restrictions do not exist for their own employees.

What the NCAA does with their freshly made money is irrelevant. They can be donating 96% of it to the Little Sisters of the Poor for all I care. If they are spreading it around back to the schools in some way, great. If they are just stuffing it into their bank accounts, also great. They are a business. I have no problem at all if they are a successful business.

But these student athletes should be allowed the very same opportunities to profit from the efforts that the NCAA is clearly and handsomely profiting from.

[MamaMia]

College kids have families. Surely they are allowed to receive some spending money from them. Thats what parents are for. Most college kids have no scholarship and yet, they manage.

[agoo758]

College kids have families. Surely they are allowed to receive some spending money from them. Thats what parents are for. Most college kids have no scholarship and yet, they manage.

It is not an issue of whether one can "manage". It is a matter of whether they are paid what they are worth. Of course, there are a lot of players playing for little nothing schools and not generating revenue, but there are also a handful of athletes that bring millions to their Universities and don't see a dime of it.

[Mongo]

College kids have families. Surely they are allowed to receive some spending money from them. Thats what parents are for. Most college kids have no scholarship and yet, they manage.

these athletes are young MEN and WOMEN, not kids. sure their parents can help them, but what if they wont or cant?

[badger]

these athletes are young MEN and WOMEN, not kids. sure their parents can help them, but what if they wont or cant?

Then FAFSA will deny their application for financial aid, because the federal government considers higher education funding to the responsibility of the parents, even if the parents don't agree :(

[MeMyself&Me]

...but there are also a handful of athletes that bring millions to their Universities and don't see a dime of it.

I would have been happy... correction, VERY happy to have been one those athletes. Those that aren't happy don't know what it's like to actually pay for their college.


Then FAFSA will deny their application for financial aid, because the federal government considers higher education funding to the responsibility of the parents, even if the parents don't agree :(

My parents were one of those that didn't agree. I did get some student loans but not enough to cover college. I worked a full time job while going to school full time to pay for the difference and I'm still paying off my student loans and I graduated 13 years ago.

To say that college athletes aren't compensated is ignorant.

[MamaMia]

these athletes are young MEN and WOMEN, not kids. sure their parents can help them, but what if they wont or cant?

My kids are still my kids, no matter how old they are and if they need some spending money, I'll find a away. I would do so if not for the pleasure of helping my child, then out of gratitude to them for earning the scholarship, saving me tons of money, and to the university for provided that which most parents and/or students have to pay for.

They will earn a living with an education that others paid for.

If their parents didn't plan ahead, cant, or wont help, then they'll have to earn some cash during the times they aren't in school, like many of us did.

[MamaMia]

It is not an issue of whether one can "manage". It is a matter of whether they are paid what they are worth. Of course, there are a lot of players playing for little nothing schools and not generating revenue, but there are also a handful of athletes that bring millions to their Universities and don't see a dime of it.The university deserves the money and they need it to accomplish what is necessary to provide even more free ride educations for more up and coming athletes. The athletes practice and play in return for that education.

[agoo758]

The university deserves the money and they need it to accomplish what is necessary to provide even more free ride educations for more up and coming athletes. The athletes practice and play in return for that education.

I only buy that about ten percent of the way. I do agree that the university deserves some of the money because they founded and sponsored the programs to begin with. In other words, they are investors and very similar to stockholders in that regard. They are certainly entitled to part of the money, but not all of it. As I have said before in this thread, for the major college programs, even free room and board is a rip off to a number of these athletes when you consider the amount of money they bring in. As for the rest of the universities whose programs don't make all that much money, then they are free to keep doing what they are doing, and nothing is disrupted. I fail to understand why so many college football fans have so much disdain for the athletes that they wish to deny to them what they wouldn't deny themselves: a fair wage and living for what they contribute to society.

[ouflak]

Ok, so the general theme that this thread has taken is basically that the student athletes 'get enough'.

So I guess I must pose the rather obvious questions:
Why does everybody associated with these athletes (coaches, administrators, NCAA, bowls, merchandisers, licensing companies, etc...) get to profit from their work?
Why does everybody associated with them get to earn increasingly large amounts of profits and revenues while the athletes continue to get the same 'enough'?


If I follow correctly some of the reasoning put forth in this thread correctly, then...


Students that are not student athletes do not get any advantages like student athletes get.
Therefore, student athletes 'get enough' irrespective of how much their specific efforts may profit the university.
It is also a fact that students who are not student athletes and likewise not coaches, administrators, the NCAA, merchandisers, etc... also do not get the advantages that these groups get.
Therefore coaches, administrators, NCAA, merchandisers, licensing companies, etc, etc... 'get enough' and thus should not make any more profits or revenues from their association with student athletics than what the average non-student-athlete gets, or at best, no more that what the averages student athlete gets.
Conclusion: This is fair and reasonable.


Have I got the general line of reasoning correct here (or have I ended yet another thread :( )?

[OUTrumpet]

Ok, so the general theme that this thread has taken is basically that the student athletes 'get enough'.

So I guess I must pose the rather obvious questions:
Why does everybody associated with these athletes (coaches, administrators, NCAA, bowls, merchandisers, licensing companies, etc...) get to profit from their work?
Why does everybody associated with them get to earn increasingly large amounts of profits and revenues while the athletes continue to get the same 'enough'?


If I follow correctly some of the reasoning put forth in this thread correctly, then...


Students that are not student athletes do not get any advantages like student athletes get.
Therefore, student athletes 'get enough' irrespective of how much their specific efforts may profit the university.
It is also a fact that students who are not student athletes and likewise not coaches, administrators, the NCAA, merchandisers, etc... also do not get the advantages that these groups get.
Therefore coaches, administrators, NCAA, merchandisers, licensing companies, etc, etc... 'get enough' and thus should not make any more profits or revenues from their association with student athletics than what the average non-student-athlete gets, or at best, no more that what the averages student athlete gets.
Conclusion: This is fair and reasonable.


Have I got the general line of reasoning correct here (or have I ended yet another thread :( )?

The only people who are close to the compensation are coaches and athletic directors. Do I think they're overpaid? Yes. I think salaries have blown up significantly over the last 10-15 years. The coaches are teachers. Coaching is definitely a full time job - most college head coaches put in approx 80+ hours a week during the season. Typically becomes a regular full time job in the offseason, but with travel.

Why does a high school coach make money when the student athletes are prohibited from getting paid at that level?

[texaspokieokie]

if they wanta get paid, letem quit school & get a job diggin ditches.

[Curly Bill]

if they wanta get paid, letem quit school & get a job diggin ditches.

Bingo!

If we pay athletes are we gonna pay band members, what about theater folks, what about cheerleaders, dance teams, members of the debate team???

[agoo758]

Ok, so the general theme that this thread has taken is basically that the student athletes 'get enough'.

So I guess I must pose the rather obvious questions:[LIST=1]
Why does everybody associated with these athletes (coaches, administrators, NCAA, bowls, merchandisers, licensing companies, etc...) get to profit from their work?
Why does everybody associated with them get to earn increasingly large amounts of profits and revenues while the athletes continue to get the same 'enough'?


You could not have said that any better. I don't think anyone in this thread that argues that student athletes shouldn't have "more than enough", will be giving up their houses and big screen TV's to move into "good enough" 50 year old dorms that havn't been renovated since they were built anytime soon.

[texaspokieokie]

they're supposed to be "amateurs".

[agoo758]

Bingo!

If we pay athletes are we gonna pay band members, what about theater folks, what about cheerleaders, dance teams, members of the debate team???

No. I, and everyone else arguing in favor of compensating athletes have clearly said that compensation should be BASED ON A PROFIT. If a group does not make money, then the members DON'T GET PAID.

[texaspokieokie]

No. I, and everyone else arguing in favor of compensating athletes have clearly said that compensation should be BASED ON A PROFIT. If a group does not make money, then the members DON'T GET PAID.

well, there goes the question of pay for nearly all colleges.

[agoo758]

well, there goes the question of pay for nearly all colleges.

Fine. What's wrong with that?

[Curly Bill]

No. I, and everyone else arguing in favor of compensating athletes have clearly said that compensation should be BASED ON A PROFIT. If a group does not make money, then the members DON'T GET PAID.

Not ever gonna fly.

[ouflak]

No. I, and everyone else arguing in favor of compensating athletes have clearly said that compensation should be BASED ON A PROFIT. If a group does not make money, then the members DON'T GET PAID.
Not ever gonna fly.

You may be right. That is obviously why coaches of female collegiate sports are paid the same as their male equivalents for the same sport. And why a men's tennis coach can expect to make the same salary as the men's basketball coach. In fact the NCAA's interpretation of Title IX does specifically refer to the pay of coaches being on parity, curiously.
.
.
.
.
.
Oh... wait a minute....
.
.
.
Hmmm... maybe you need to expand on why this is 'Not ever gonna fly'. Because right now, IT DOES FLY. And we haven't even gotten to paying players yet!

Very obviously, there is different pay for different sports at every school and that is highly dependent on revenues and profitability. If it 'flies' for coaches, administrators, and every sort of assistant, including student assistants, involved in a sport, I don't see why it won't 'fly' for the athletes themselves. I'm curious why you think otherwise.

[texaspokieokie]

Fine. What's wrong with that?

nuttin

[Soonerfan88]

The world isn't fair, never was & never gonna be. College is the time obtain the skills and knowledge needed before entering your profession. Coaches took advantage of the opportunity college athletics provided, got their degree and are now profiting from it. Sam Bradford took advantage of his opportunity on the field, honed his craft, is now profiting from it and got a degree to ensure he knows how to handle the money he's making. Dean Blevins took advantage of his scholarship opportunity, got his degree and is now profiting from it. Jason White took advantage of his scholarship, got his degree, and is now profiting from it - because he would not have the opportunities and success he has now if he hadn't played college football.

College athletes are being compensated enough. It is up to them to take advantage of the opportunity provided, increase their knowledge and skill and find a way to profit from it. That's what college is all about.

[texaspokieokie]

The world isn't fair, never was & never gonna be. College is the time obtain the skills and knowledge needed before entering your profession. Coaches took advantage of the opportunity college athletics provided, got their degree and are now profiting from it. Sam Bradford took advantage of his opportunity on the field, honed his craft, is now profiting from it and got a degree to ensure he knows how to handle the money he's making. Dean Blevins took advantage of his scholarship opportunity, got his degree and is now profiting from it. Jason White took advantage of his scholarship, got his degree, and is now profiting from it - because he would not have the opportunities and success he has now if he hadn't played college football.

College athletes are being compensated enough. It is up to them to take advantage of the opportunity provided, increase their knowledge and skill and find a way to profit from it. That's what college is all about.

THIS ^^^^

[ouflak]

It is up to them to take advantage of the opportunity provided, increase their knowledge and skill and find a way to profit from it. That's what college is all about.

That's the whole point. It ISN'T up to them. It's up to the NCAA. College is not about not being able to make a profit until you graduate. If you come up with a good idea, or a have a great skill, that you can market, even if it means marketing yourself, then you should have every freedom to do that as any person who has a degree. The student athletes don't have any option or freedom to do this. But the NCAA does, and from *their* hard work, images and likenesses, and does so without restraint. I suppose all of the merchandising and licensing corporation have also earned the right to profit from their hard work, to the tune of billions a year and increasing, because the execs in charge have MBA's?

Bill Gates should just give back all of his money I guess. He clearly hasn't earned it. Afterall, he never put in the kind of hard work in college to earn what all of those coaches, sports administrators, and professional athletes did in school to earn that kind money.

Look you're right (and almost got some compensation spek). Life isn't fair. I, a degreed software engineer, work as hard as any NBA player. But I don't generate hundreds of millions of dollars for my company. Certainly my efforts go indispensably towards the bottom line. But if my company isn't making money, I may not get paid. If my company is doing well, I will probably get paid a lot. But I will never be paid the kind of money an NBA player makes. If I have problem with this, I have a problem with all of the fundamentals of a free market economy.

[MeMyself&Me]

You could not have said that any better. I don't think anyone in this thread that argues that student athletes shouldn't have "more than enough", will be giving up their houses and big screen TV's to move into "good enough" 50 year old dorms that havn't been renovated since they were built anytime soon.

I didn't own a house or have a big screen tv when i was in college. Not that I didn't want things like that but I was too busy trying to pay for college. I'd say those here that are saying college athletes should be paid don't realize how valuable that education is because they've never had to pay for it themselves.

[Mongo]

My kids are still my kids, no matter how old they are and if they need some spending money, I'll find a away. I would do so if not for the pleasure of helping my child, then out of gratitude to them for earning the scholarship, saving me tons of money, and to the university for provided that which most parents and/or students have to pay for.

They will earn a living with an education that others paid for.

If their parents didn't plan ahead, cant, or wont help, then they'll have to earn some cash during the times they aren't in school, like many of us did.

good for you Mama. I am not knocking your family at all.

a kid earns a scholly, lives in the dorms, gets his meals paid for..... tell me, how does he do his laundry if he has no income from August to May? where is the money for the coin operated machines coming from if the athlete has no outside help? when is that athlete going to work when they are busting *** from 6am to 5pm for the school, not including study times?

people bitch about athletes and their "free" rides. why is there no bitching about academic scholly people? they got in with their talents, their skills, but do you see them having to turn in paystub info to an organization that limits what they can make? in fact, they have more free time to have a job during the main semesters than athletes do.

how much money does an academic scholly person bring into the university vs an athlete? how much time does an academic scholly person have to work vs an athlete? how much is that academic scholly person limited to earn vs an athlete?

[Soonerfan88]

The large majority of what the NCAA makes is returned to the schools & is used to upgrade facilities, provide academic support, etc. It also maintains a fund to cover such things as emergency transportation home and other things Switzer got in trouble for in case an athlete can't afford it. The athletes are benefiting from it, just not in the form of a big screen tv or SUV.

Bill Gates left college to pursue his own business. Football players are free to leave college to play in Canada or the UFL or even the NFL if they are old enough. And the rules keeping them from the NFL are not made by the NCAA.

For the thousandth time it seems, if student athletes need money for laundry they should fill out a FAFSA and use Pell grants and student loans like the rest of the students. Yes, they are eligible for it and many qualify for some Pell money because of limited family incomes.

[MamaMia]

good for you Mama. I am not knocking your family at all.

a kid earns a scholly, lives in the dorms, gets his meals paid for..... tell me, how does he do his laundry if he has no income from August to May? where is the money for the coin operated machines coming from if the athlete has no outside help? when is that athlete going to work when they are busting *** from 6am to 5pm for the school, not including study times?

people bitch about athletes and their "free" rides. why is there no bitching about academic scholly people? they got in with their talents, their skills, but do you see them having to turn in paystub info to an organization that limits what they can make? in fact, they have more free time to have a job during the main semesters than athletes do.

how much money does an academic scholly person bring into the university vs an athlete? how much time does an academic scholly person have to work vs an athlete? how much is that academic scholly person limited to earn vs an athlete?

I never had a scholarship, but I made it. There are so many ways for college kids to earn money. I waited tables at the Mont on week nights after I finished my homework. I went to school during the day and during my last year at OU, I did it all with a brand new baby who was born on August 4th. My husband got student loans to pay for dental school. It took us 12 years to pay that off, but we did it. He worked the oil field every chance he got when school wasn't in session. I cleaned office buildings, waited tables and took in ironing that last year. My family pitched in with my books and tuition. We even still managed to have lots of fun. We were young and happy, full of energy. Where theres a will, theres a way. :)

Plus, if you think universities are going to take a financial hit if they had to pay athletes then you're wrong. They would most certainly pass that expense onto the fans. Ticket prices would sky rocket, as would donor fees. Kids who have to pay for their tuition would be charged more. Thats how big business works.

[Mongo]

The large majority of what the NCAA makes is returned to the schools & is used to upgrade facilities, provide academic support, etc. It also maintains a fund to cover such things as emergency transportation home and other things Switzer got in trouble for in case an athlete can't afford it. The athletes are benefiting from it, just not in the form of a big screen tv or SUV.

Bill Gates left college to pursue his own business. Football players are free to leave college to play in Canada or the UFL or even the NFL if they are old enough. And the rules keeping them from the NFL are not made by the NCAA.

For the thousandth time it seems, if student athletes need money for laundry they should fill out a FAFSA and use Pell grants and student loans like the rest of the students. Yes, they are eligible for it and many qualify for some Pell money because of limited family incomes.


if you are still claimed as a dependant, what does it take to get loans and grants? what if the parents wont help?

[Mongo]

I never had a scholarship, but I made it. There are so many ways for college kids to earn money. I waited tables at the Mont on week nights after I finished my homework. I went to school during the day and during my last year at OU, I did it all with a brand new baby who was born on August 4th. My husband got student loans to pay for dental school. It took us 12 years to pay that off, but we did it. He worked the oil field every chance he got when school wasn't in session. I cleaned office buildings, waited tables and took in ironing that last year. My family pitched in with my books and tuition. We even still managed to have lots of fun. We were young and happy, full of energy. Where theres a will, theres a way. :)

Plus, if you think universities are going to take a financial hit if they had to pay athletes then you're wrong. They would most certainly pass that expense onto the fans. Ticket prices would sky rocket, as would donor fees. Kids who have to pay for their tuition would be charged more. Thats how big business works.


when you waited tables at the Mont on weekdays, were you skipping films on that weeks game? were you skipping mandatory study halls at 6pm?

listen, everyone jumped that player's *** that blew the whistle on the 20 hours/week and called him a rat or whatever. players have to sign sheets weekly for that. I will tell you that 20/week is full of ****. "mandatory" meetings happen all the time. guess what happens when the athlete doesnt show?

[pphilfran]

http://www.rolltide.com/genrel/091803aaa.html

NCAA Rules Regarding Per Diem and Meal Allowances for Student-Athletes

Per NCAA Bylaw 16.8.1.2.3, all student-athletes on the same team must receive identical meal allowances on intercollegiate trips and during vacation periods when student-athletes are required to remain on campus for organized practice sessions or competition. Such allowances may not exceed the amount provided by the institution to institutional staff members on away-from-campus trips and may not be provided for a particular meal if the student-athlete receives that meal (or its equivalent) from another source (i.e., coach pays, event banquet, etc.).

Any meal may be:

Fed as a team meal and charged on the hotel bill,
Fed at a remote location and paid from this advance fund, or
Given as cash to each student with their signature on the Student Per Diem Signature Form serving as their receipt.

The Student Per Diem Signature Form must be completed, and signatures for the exact amount of cash should be obtained by the coach. The dollar amount given to each student athlete must be posted on the student signature form at the time the student athlete signs the form and receives the money. It should be clearly explained that this signature and initialing serves as receipt of funds. Students shall not, under any circumstances: 1) be asked to sign a blank student per diem signature form, nor 2) be asked to sign the form without receiving the per diem at the same time.

Department of Intercollegiate Athletic Policies & Procedures:

Each Head Coach should ensure that the starting period, proper increment of petty cash for the appropriate number of meals, and the ending term for the petty cash issued are adhered to. The guidelines for these issues are as follows:

Time frames when breakfast, lunch and dinner meal money can be provided:
Before 8:30 a.m. – Breakfast
Between 12:00 Noon & 1:30 p.m. – Lunch
After 5:00 p.m. - Dinner

Beginning Time Period for Issuing of Per Diem - Whether on or off campus, the meal money issued should start no earlier than the assembly time required for the team, (e.g. if the team is required to depart Tuscaloosa, or meet for an on campus event at 2:30 p.m., the noon increment of money cannot be issued since the student should have eaten their noon meal in their normal area.)

Any meal which falls within the time frame of a meet, match, or game should be fed as the team meal, or the increment of meal money should be issued to the student athlete for the meal missed.

If a team meal is purchased by the department (e.g., between double header games, or while a meet is under way, but not involving all athletes at all times) no meal money can be issued to the particular athlete who receives the provided meal, in addition to providing that meal.

For meals not purchased by the Intercollegiate Athletics Department or another source (i.e, Event Host.), increments of meal money should be issued to athletes. The increments must meet the amounts listed in section 5(h) below.

Ending Time Period for Issuing Per Diem - For on campus events, per diem may be issued for the projected meals that an athlete will miss through one (1) hour past the end of the last event of the day (e.g. a baseball game which ends at 5:15 p.m., would require an additional hour for interviews and showers, we would assume that the student athlete would miss a 6:00 p.m. evening meal, therefore is entitled to competition day evening meal increment of $12. If the event was scheduled at 1:00 p.m. and terminates at 4:00 p.m., the noon increment and dinner meals may be issued to student athletes.

For off campus events, the ending time period will be the time at which athletes are released upon their return to campus.

Different circumstances and different locations may dictate different per diems to equitably support student athletes’ meal requirements. The following guidelines will govern the amounts allowable for meal allowances for student athletes.

Competition Days - On or Off Campus

Breakfast $ 8.00
Lunch 12.00
Dinner 15.00
Pre- or Post-Game Food Must Be Provided
Max. Total for Day $35.00

Note: If student dining is open, only meals missed as a result of events may be reimbursed. All practice schedules must allow for students to meet their scheduled meal times. The Associate Athletics Director for Compliance must approve any exception.

Non-Competition Days – Off Campus or Days When Student-Athletes are Required to Remain On Campus During Official University Vacation Periods for Practice/Competition (i.e., Spring Break)

Breakfast $ 8.00
Lunch 12.00
Dinner 15.00
Max. Total for Day $35.00

On competition days only, it is permissible to provide a post-game snack or meal (actual food only; no cash may be provided in lieu of this post-game snack/meal), depending on nutritional requirements.

In some instances cost of living increases in certain metro areas increasing the allowable per diem to not more than $45 each day. Prior written approval from sport oversight Associate Athletic Director must be obtained.

During NCAA Championships and bowl games, NCAA bylaw 16.8.1.6 permits the institution to provide qualifying student-athletes $20 per day incidental expense money during a period limited to the maximum number of days of per diem allowed for the involved championship, or, for certified post-season bowl contests, for a period not to exceed 10 days. The $20 per day may be provided only after the team departs for or reports to the site of the championship or bowl game.

[pphilfran]

http://www.thelantern.com/campus/500k-available-to-osu-athletes-in-need-1.1819876

Need contacts? Need a couple of dollars to travel home for a funeral? Need to rent computer equipment for a class?

If you're an athlete and meet certain qualifications, the Athletic Department's Special Assistance Fund has you covered.

In a recent interview with The Lantern, Ohio State athletic director Gene Smith recalled one notable recipient of the little-known pot of money allocated to OSU athletes.

"One of the greatest moments was when Evan Turner was drafted and he went up on that stage and smiled," Smith said. "And I remember the conversation that our trainers and everybody had with him (when he got to OSU) about putting braces on his teeth. We paid for that."

The Special Assistance Fund is designed to help athletes cover expenses in times of need. It lets the athlete's conference pay for expenses that normally would be NCAA extra benefit violations.

The NCAA distributes the Special Assistance Fund, but Division I conferences administer the money "to assist student-athletes in meeting their financial needs that arise in conjunction with participation in intercollegiate athletics, enrollment in an academic curriculum or that recognize academic achievement as well as assisting student-athletes with special financial needs," according to an NCAA memorandum.

About $54 million went to Division I conferences for the 2009-10 school year, according to the memo. OSU received $516,004 as a part of the $3.6 million distributed to the 11 schools in the Big Ten.

The Special Assistance Fund was created in 1991 and expanded in 2008 after a court ruling favored former Stanford football player Jason White in his antitrust suit filed against the NCAA in 2006.

White, along with former UCLA football player Brian Polak, former San Francisco basketball player Jovan Harris and former Texas-El Paso basketball player Chris Craig, argued that "restricting a scholarship to the cost of tuition, books, housing and meals was an unlawful restraint of trade."

In a settlement, the NCAA agreed to make $218 million available to Division I schools through the 2012-13 school year for athletes who can prove a financial or academic need.

Andrew Zimbalist, an economics professor at Smith College in Massachusetts, worries about what will happen after the settlement expires.

The Special Assistance Fund "is a positive, it's a good thing," Zimbalist said. "But the problem is, No. 1, that deal that was made as a result of a lawsuit only requires NCAA to continue this for another two years. After that, there's no requirement. I'm concerned because I think the NCAA might be able to buy a way out."

To be eligible for the money, athletes can show financial need through a variety of channels, such as proving that they are eligible for a federal Pell Grant, which are targeted to help students from low-income families.

A student can apply for up to $500 per academic year to pay for clothing, travel expenses from campus to home, expendable academic course supplies up to $40, rental costs for certain course-related equipment, medical and dental costs not covered by another insurance program and costs linked to a family emergency.

Costs that aren't covered include entertainment expenditures and the "purchase of insurance to protect against the loss of potential future professional sports earnings," according to the University of Michigan Compliance website.

Doug Archie, OSU associate athletics director for compliance and camps, said the money is crucial to athletes when they are in dire need of financial help and have nowhere else to turn.

"It's meant for unusual circumstances. If a student-athlete has a death in the family, the fund could cover their trip home," Archie said. In October, "a young lady had her apartment broken into. Thanks to the fund, we were able to cover the cost of her course-related materials that were stolen."

Smith said the Athletic Department used the Special Assistance Fund to help former OSU defensive tackle Nader Abdallah and his family after Hurricane Katrina destroyed their home in Louisiana.

"Katrina hit and (Abdallah) came to us and said, ‘Hey, my family is wiped out.' His parents had a convenience-type store wiped out. He's got brothers and sisters down there," Smith said. "We go to the NCAA so we can use our Special Assistance Fund, which most people forget we have, and we were able to bring (Abdallah's) family here and we put them up at the Holiday Inn, paid for it, gave them per diem for breakfast, lunch and dinner until they could get themselves back up on their feet."

Whether the athlete in need is Evan Turner or a hurdler on the women's track team, the Special Assistance Fund aims to help athletes who are in a tight spot.

"I could give you countless stories where our kids have come to us and said, ‘I've got this problem,'" Smith said. "And so then we find a way to solve it."

Repeated attempts to contact Turner and Abdallah were not successful.

[pphilfran]

http://finaid.msu.edu/athletes.asp

Applying for financial aid other than athletic scholarships

The Office of Financial Aid (OFA) offers a variety of grant, work, and loan programs to give financial options to all families, no matter what their need or resources. You should file a Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) to apply for both need-and non-need-based aid at MSU. This free form is used nationwide to determine aid eligibility by collecting income, asset, and demographic data about the student and family. MSU's federal code for the FAFSA is 002290.To find out more about the types of financial aid available visit the Office of Financial Aid web site: www.finaid.msu.edu.

If you are unable to file the online FAFSA you may obtain a paper application from your high school or college, and mail it to the federal processor or provide data on the federal government’s World Wide Web site. However, the online FAFSA is faster and more accurate.

Four to six weeks after you submit your FAFSA, you should receive a Student Aid Report (SAR). The SAR lists all the data you reported on your FAFSA. Possible errors are in bold print. Review the entire SAR carefully to ensure that all information is accurate. If corrections are needed, follow the instructions on the SAR.

About the time you get the SAR, the same data is released to MSU electronically. This information is used to determine your eligibility for a variety of financial aid programs.

[pphilfran]

Many, many more to be found....

[SoonerNomad]

ouflak,

I am definitely from the camp that the student athletes get enough, and in fact, in the vast majority of cases get much more than enough. They are compensated for the hard work they put in as student athletes. They are compensated for the risks they take with their health. They are compensated way beyond the average individual that does not possess their talents.

I will try to address your concerns with my take on these issues. (By the way I like the synopis of opinions. It helps focus on the issues).



Ok, so the general theme that this thread has taken is basically that the student athletes 'get enough'.

So I guess I must pose the rather obvious questions:
Why does everybody associated with these athletes (coaches, administrators, NCAA, bowls, merchandisers, licensing companies, etc...) get to profit from their work?

Athletes do profit from their work, through education, food, tutoring, room and board, lifetime benefits of playing college football, the actual experience of playing college football and in some instances, where their talent and hard work justifies it, sufficient exposure and prestige as college football players to make millions (98% don't get this chance, but they have already profited).

Coaches profit based on won/loss records. Money earned through hard work in a pressure packed job where even idiots like me can criticize their every move and where mistakes and bad luck can result in being out on the street. The more success, the more money.

Merchandisers and Licensing companies get rights to the logo and sell the plethora of stuff that we fans buy. This is supply and demand. This is not the players money and never should be. The vast majority of us buy a shirt or a hat that says Oklahoma on it and would buy it whomever is playing. Occasionally we might buy a jersey with a players name on it, but we're not buying it if it just has the players name. The Oklahoma logo is much more important to the sale than the name on the jersey and the individual wouldn't have his name on the jersey if he wasn't playing for Oklahoma. Ryan Broyles could put up the same numbers at Tulsa and wouldn't sell a remotely comparable number of jerseys, but someone else's jersey playing at OU would be selling at a similar rate. The prestige of the school sells the jersey.

The bowls make money off the fans. We want to see one more game. The players get to play again. They get the trip. They get the goody bag with ipods, etc in it. They get another chance to expose themselves to pro scouts on the remote possiblity they might be one of the two percenters that can continue playing for money in the future.


Why does everybody associated with them get to earn increasingly large amounts of profits and revenues while the athletes continue to get the same 'enough'?

I would argue players arean't still getting the "same" as scholarships cover much more today than they did 20 years ago, but your point is valid. I would just argue the fans have increased the money because of their interest in the sport and rooting for individual schools, and not necessarily individual players.



If I follow correctly some of the reasoning put forth in this thread correctly, then...


Students that are not student athletes do not get any advantages like student athletes get.


That is because other students don't get the same advantages. Not even ones with scholarships. You can't deny that. Not even close. Not the room and board. Not the quality of food. They dont' get the lifetime of prestige. I went to the same high school as former OU great Zac Henderson. He is a legend in our hometown. The local ball field was named after him. The perks of being a Sooner go on forever. My hometown is in Texas. I bet its even more of a perk being a Sooner in smalltown, Oklahoma. Not to mention, without their football talent many of these may not get the opportunity to go to college. Not because they couldn't handle college work, but because they couldn't afford to go.


Therefore, student athletes 'get enough' irrespective of how much their specific efforts may profit the university.

I've already discussed this in general, but yes. The University name and 60 years of excellence and prestige gives the school the biggest chance for profit. There is a baseline of profit that OU football would make whether or not Adrian Peterson comes here and plays like a college football hall of famer. The individual players don't create that baseline profit for the university. I guess you could argue if OU were to stop getting the best athletes then the attendance and merchandise sales would suffer, but it wouldn't be to the extent you seem to argue. This will sound colder than it is meant, but the players are interchangeable. Every February another 30 sign up for the honor of playing here and the benefits that come with it. Three or four players change their minds on that day. The ones that decide to come here don't change the profit level of the university in any significant way.

It is also a fact that students who are not student athletes and likewise not coaches, administrators, the NCAA, merchandisers, etc... also do not get the advantages that these groups get.

Already addressed. Why should they get the same advantages as the people that run the programs. They are getting their share of it and their share is significant.

Therefore coaches, administrators, NCAA, merchandisers, licensing companies, etc, etc... 'get enough' and thus should not make any more profits or revenues from their association with student athletics than what the average non-student-athlete gets, or at best, no more that what the averages student athlete gets.
Conclusion: This is fair and reasonable.

I don't understand this one so I will skip.



Have I got the general line of reasoning correct here (or have I ended yet another thread :( )?

I believe we get bogged down in these discussions based on the actions of a few who want more than the rules allow and maybe due to jealously that we are not the ones making the profits that a school like Oklahoma, and its football coaches, its administrators, and its licensors and merchandisers can make simply because they are connected with the school. I wish I was in on the deal, but it doesn't change the fact that football players benefit from the current system. They're not getting screwed. They're not getting the shaft. Because of their talent. Because of their hard work. Because of their dedication. They are playing football at the University of Oklahoma and they are receiving an education from the University of Oklahoma and it will change their life forever.

Just one more thing. I think this is even more true at small division one schools like North Texas or Tulsa where the chance of going pro is even smaller. Talented athletes are getting opportunities to change their life. To get educations they wouldn't get. To get four or five years of room and board and three meals a day. They are not getting cheated. Not even close.

[agoo758]

Everyone that keeps arguing that athletes get "enough" keep missing that point that I and others are making on this site. If an athlete brings a certain amount of value to a university than he should be compensated for WHAT HE IS WORTH not WHAT IS ENOUGH. (In fact, if any other business did what the NCAA does to any student athlete that brings in as much money as some do, they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be.) I hope those arguing for athletes only getting ENOUGH arn't asking for raises at work, living in anything bigger than a studio apartment, and dining at the soup kitchen or some cheap cafeteria each week, otherwise they are big time hypocrites.

[MamaMia]

when you waited tables at the Mont on weekdays, were you skipping films on that weeks game? were you skipping mandatory study halls at 6pm?

listen, everyone jumped that player's *** that blew the whistle on the 20 hours/week and called him a rat or whatever. players have to sign sheets weekly for that. I will tell you that 20/week is full of ****. "mandatory" meetings happen all the time. guess what happens when the athlete doesnt show? I was friends with some of the players from my day. They did just fine and had more down time than I did. Plus I was waiting tables at night, when most of the players were sleeping.

[edit] Who do you think is going to weather the cost of paying salaries to all these college athletes?

[ouflak]

NCAA to increase the value of scholarships. (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/07/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-big-ten-conference-commissioner-jim-delany-sec-commissioner-mike-slive/1)

[texaspokieokie]

maybe.

[MeMyself&Me]

Everyone that keeps arguing that athletes get "enough" keep missing that point that I and others are making on this site. If an athlete brings a certain amount of value to a university than he should be compensated for WHAT HE IS WORTH not WHAT IS ENOUGH. (In fact, if any other business did what the NCAA does to any student athlete that brings in as much money as some do, they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be.) I hope those arguing for athletes only getting ENOUGH arn't asking for raises at work, living in anything bigger than a studio apartment, and dining at the soup kitchen or some cheap cafeteria each week, otherwise they are big time hypocrites.

If it's not worth it to a player to play an amateur sport and receive a full ride college scholarship in return, among other more subjective benefits, then that player doesn't have to do it. Yet they keep signing on that dotted line. So if you want to say 'what he is worth' then I'd have to say that he's getting what he's worth as determined by him.

He could always sit out of football for a few years and try to make it in the NFL if he's good enough. Or maybe he can try to pay his own way through college via other jobs since that's seems to such a better deal to you. Or maybe his parents have enough money to pay for his tuition. Or maybe he can just not go to college and try to approach life without that extra feather in the cap.

The point is there is a LOT of value to what colleges are offering these athletes. It is SOOOO much better than any alternative to suggest they 'deserve' more is laughable.

[SoonerNomad]

Everyone that keeps arguing that athletes get "enough" keep missing that point that I and others are making on this site. If an athlete brings a certain amount of value to a university than he should be compensated for WHAT HE IS WORTH not WHAT IS ENOUGH. (In fact, if any other business did what the NCAA does to any student athlete that brings in as much money as some do, they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be.) I hope those arguing for athletes only getting ENOUGH arn't asking for raises at work, living in anything bigger than a studio apartment, and dining at the soup kitchen or some cheap cafeteria each week, otherwise they are big time hypocrites.

Do you have some plan for coming up with what a college player is worth? I can tell you what a college education is worth. I can tell you what having no student loans when you graduate is worth. I can tell you what playing on TV every Saturday because you play at a major college is worth.

Would Oklahoma be making less money if Sam Bradford had not come to college here? It would be the same season ticket sales. They went to BCS bowls before and after he left. How are you coming up with what he is worth.

Bradford came to the university as a three star athlete with limited pro potential. He was lucky, many thought, OU picked him. He was a legacy. A local boy. Many of the recruitniks on this board and others thought it was a stretch to take him. Through his hard work, his dedication, his prodigous talent he USED the platform of being the starting QB at the University of Oklahoma to make himself into the first pick of the NFL draft and he earned a 50 million dollar contract. (I also believe he graduated). OU might get better players in the future because of his success, but they won't significantly increase their income. He came to college with a college scholarship and a chance to keep playing and improving and left with a future career that you and I would only dream about.

Let's add another wrinkle to this. Let's say he and a few others have shown their value on the field and are now "worth" more. When should they start reaping that benefit? The first jersey sale. The first TD. The first win as QB. The first complete season as a starter. When do you make Sam Bradford from a simple college athlete to a superstar that has separated himself from his teammates both by deed and income?

[texaspokieokie]

When ???
soon as he turns pro.

if you want pro teams representing OU (or other schools), that is fine !!!

just count me out.

[agoo758]

Do you have some plan for coming up with what a college player is worth?


Good God. I have answered that question about 4,234,411 times because you guys keep asking the same God damn question. Please go back and read my other posts. Seriously, I don't mean to sound rude, but I will get a little irritated if I keep having to answer a point I already have made ad nauseum

[SoonerBread]

... (In fact, if any other business did what the NCAA does to any student athlete that brings in as much money as some do, they would be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and should be.) I hope those arguing for athletes only getting ENOUGH arn't asking for raises at work, living in anything bigger than a studio apartment, and dining at the soup kitchen or some cheap cafeteria each week, otherwise they are big time hypocrites.

College football players don't "work" or play for the NCAA. They play for the school. The NCAA is the governing body. Similarly, I don't work for the government, but it governs my daily life (I know it's an overly-broad analogy...). College football players sign letters of intent knowing they won't be paid for their "services," generally speaking outside of Auburn. They are not under a contract of employment. They are literally being allowed the opportunity to participate in an extra-curricular activity at a school, and are being given a scholarship if it is deserved. Why in the world do you think the scholarship limits were reduced to 85? What would keep Texas from signing 200 players and paying them all more than Baylor/TTU/OU/LSU/Insert school name here? All that would limit the big money schools is the amount of checks in the checkbook. Competition would cease to exist, except at the uppermost level of $$$$$$$$. OU, my friend, would not be able to compete in that world. Which is fine, because if OU starts paying players more than they already do in terms of scholarships, I won't buy tickets, tune in, buy hats/shirts/mugs anyway.

Giving players a stipend (salary) would effectively end college football as you and I know it. We already have paid football players. They play in the NFL. I don't want my college players paid. I like them better when they give a damn.

The Olympics sucks now because the amatuerism is gone. Do you want that to happen to college sports, too?

[PLaw]

Cut to the chase: College athletes in the money revenue sports with full ride scholarships are wonderfully compensated. It will cost me about $35K+/- per year to send my "out of state" son to OU starting this fall. Even though around $7.5K is due to his degree plan, that's still high 20's for out of state tuition, books, fees, room and board - not including the party $'s. All of this despite the fact that I am a 4th gen Okie whose family still owns a 1,000 acres down in Garvin Co. So yeah, these kids are getting well compensated to go play a game and have the opportunity to earn a good education.

That said, what I do have a problem with is the NCAA that will let a member institution recruit a kid out of a poverty situation, more than a thousand miles away from his home. Then, when the kid needs a coat in the winter or way to get home for the holidays it's against the rules for that same university that is generating income from this athlete to help him/her out.

One of the great desparities in life are the socio-economic types. Therefore, I strongly believe that along with the full ride scholly, there needs to be a stipend for travel home during normal class breaks, clothing, laundary,and enough pocket change for meals when the cafeteria is not serving.

Boz had it right: National Communist Against Athletes.

BOOMER

[PLaw]

And, while I'm still own my soap box, what the heck is wrong with a degree plan for "Professional Athlete". Let these athletes that aspire to be professional athletes or work in the sports business have a tailored degree plan? My uncle suggested this way back in the early 70's and as a youngster I thought he was nuts. The older I get, the more that I see he was spot on.

Boomer

[Soonerfan88]

That said, what I do have a problem with is the NCAA that will let a member institution recruit a kid out of a poverty situation, more than a thousand miles away from his home. Then, when the kid needs a coat in the winter or way to get home for the holidays it's against the rules for that same university that is generating income from this athlete to help him/her out.


Every university has a fund for that now, monitored by both the school and the conference. It's one of the many ways the NCAA money goes back to the athletes as they finance it. It's a crock that Switzer got in trouble for it, but by standing up and telling the world he wasn't sorry and it was the right thing to do for those kids is why they now have some money available.

[goingoneight]

People who want to pay college athletes obviously have never had to pay student loans, room and board, books, food and other random expenses in their college age years. If the players were focused on the education and appreciated the privelege to play a game for three to six years the way they should be, we wouldn't be having this conversation. No, they still see it as an intervention between high school and the big leagues.

ONLY thing I can agree on is maybe setting up some kinda insurance deal for college athletes' future. Not everyone gets to make big league millions, and situations like Austin Box's result from years of putting their bodies on the line for our entertainment.

[ouflak]

It cost me ... blah, blah $$$$ ... money... so it should cost them the same... blah blah blah...

Sorry to be the harbinger of reality, but it is *irrelevant* what it cost you to go to college or to put someone else through college. Maybe if you had gotten enough academic scholarships, you wouldn't have had to pay a dime. Or maybe if you had been a scholarship athlete. Or maybe if you or your parents were rich. And on and on....

What we are talking about here is these college and whether *they* should be properly compensated with some of the ever expanding revenues of college sports, especially as everyone else around them is being compensated obscenely more and mroe for the athlete's work. Just because you had to pay a load for school doesn't mean that everybody else does. I got a partial academic scholarship for my first years in school. I still had to pay a whole lot of money (and still have some left to pay). If I had come up with a dot.com superstar idea during the middle of my freshman year that makes load of money for the university and myself, and only requires me to market myself for whatever I can get, I have *every right* to make whatever money I like from my hard work, *irrespective of what you or anybody else* around me in school could or could not make.

Just because a colleague at work sitting next to you is making more money than you doing the same job doesn't mean that they have to get their pay reduced to yours. It's your responsibility to make sure you are getting paid what your are worth, not their responsibility to suffer along with you. This weird reverse-entitlement attitude here is very awkward.

[ouflak]

And while *I'm* on my soapbox, there is *still* plenty of corrupt compensation spek to go around for *those who* agree with me.

[MeMyself&Me]

The point is that they are already getting very well compensated. The people mentioning how expensive college is are doing so just to point out how well they are compensated... not some sort of reverse-entitlement.

[ouflak]

The point is that they are already getting very well compensated. .

Right. Scenario:

Begin Scenario

You work for a company that is fairly successful and has had the same level of respective success for decades. You are a significant contributor to that success at least as much as those around you. You are well paid, in particular by the standards of your trade. Then, over the next 5 years, your company quickly quadruples its revenues and triples its profits. Everybody around you gets raises, in some cases massive raises, well over 50% of what they were making before the business boom, as well as some nice additional perks. You, however, are still being paid that exact same wage. When you talk to your boss about this, he replies, "Well, you are already well compensated....".

End scenario

Does this seem reasonable?

[MeMyself&Me]

Right. Scenario:

Begin Scenario

You work for a company that is fairly successful and has had the same level of respective success for decades. You are a significant contributor to that success at least as much as those around you. You are well paid, in particular by the standards of your trade. Then, over the next 5 years, your company quickly quadruples its revenues and triples its profits. Everybody around you gets raises, in some cases massive raises, well over 50% of what they were making before the business boom, as well as some nice additional perks. You, however, are still being paid that exact same wage. When you talk to your boss about this, he replies, "Well, you are already well compensated....".

End scenario

Does this seem reasonable?

You forgot to include part of the equation.

1) Is there opportunity for me to be compensated more somewhere else for doing the exact same thing?

2) Are there plenty of other people willing and able to do my job for what I am recieving now?

[ouflak]

You forgot to include part of the equation.

1) Is there opportunity for me to be compensated more somewhere else for doing the exact same thing?

2) Are there plenty of other people willing and able to do my job for what I am recieving now?

Assume the same opportunity as you feel is the case for NCAA athletes currently.
Assume the same number of such people as you feel is the case currently for NCAA athletes.

[MeMyself&Me]

Assume the same opportunity as you feel is the case for NCAA athletes currently.
Assume the same number of such people as you feel is the case currently for NCAA athletes.


Then the boss is right cause market opportunity and demand is part of determining my value.

Also, a problem with your senario, you present it as though I'm there the whole time for the rise of success of my company. A better comparison would be that I've only been there for the last one to six years while the company's huge growth has been going on for decades AND it was always known all along that I was using the job with this company as a stepping stone to other things.

In fact, you do a good job of showing why they shouldn't get paid when you make your scenario match up more accurately.

[ouflak]

Then the boss is right cause market opportunity and demand is part of determining my value.

:D If only all of the successful corporations had employees like you, they'd be atleast 25% more profitable now. Imagine the economy! *Sigh*... Such is not the case though. Most employees expect to share in the success of their company, and look where that's gotten us.



Also, a problem with your scenario, you present it as though I'm there the whole time for the rise of success of my company. A better comparison would be that I've only been there for the last one to six years while the company's huge growth has been going on for decades AND it was always known all along that I was using the job with this company as a stepping stone to other things.

In fact, you do a good job of showing why they shouldn't get paid when you make your scenario match up more accurately.

I don't make any assumptions. It's just a scenario. You make any assumptions you like, as I stated earlier, including this one if you wish.

One addendum to my scenario: Everybody around you, including people doing the exact same job you are doing, who may have been with the company for less a period time (since you mention it), also brought this up to your boss, decided that his reply was unacceptable, told him so, and got 50% + raises in comparison with the profitability of the company.

[MeMyself&Me]

One addendum to my scenario: Everybody around you, including people doing the exact same job you are doing, who may have been with the company for less a period time (since you mention it), also brought this up to your boss, decided that his reply was unacceptable, told him so, and got 50% + raises in comparison with the profitability of the company.

I don't see how that addendum is relevant considering the players are all paid the same.

As far as your first point, you're saying a business should pay what is essentially a temporary employee more than what he is worth. You also want to compare business/employee relations like these are long term employees but that is not comparable.

[OU_Sooners75]

not enough. tell the ncaa to not limit the amount a student athlete can make in his side jobs, then I will agree with you

Come on mongo, they are compensated enough. Tuition, housing, food, books, free tutors, and side jobs for cash. What more do they need? Average cost of attending a major college in the US is $25000/year. Meaning in a four year span they are compensated $100,000 on average. This doesnt include those athletes that are given a fifth year of free higher education.

While most college students are having to put their arms and legs down as collateral for loans, college athletes on full ride scholarships have no debt at all when entering real world.

Finally, who will get paid? Just those that play in a money making sport? How fair is that to all the other athletes that tend toplay a sport that is just as demanding, yet brings in no money? So if a school has to pay every student athlete, they would likely lose money, even with most athletic departments in the nation already are losing more money than they bring in.

[OU_Sooners75]

sounds like some people here should have played better in high school

I did. I had my free ride given to me. And I still think athletes in college are compensated enough. If they want paid, they should go to a professional league and leave school!

[ouflak]

Then the boss is right cause market opportunity and demand is part of determining my value.

How do you know he's right though? Do you really believe that college football players and basketball players couldn't make more money than they are allowed to make now if free market were allowed to decide things? Wouldn't they be able to get marketing deals, work full time jobs, license their own image and likeness for more than just the value of a scholarship? Do you think that Cam Newton could not have gotten $200,000, or more, if it were perfectly allowed by the rules of the NCAA?

In the case of my scenario, let's say you tell your boss to stuff it and go looking for another job. As soon as the first company in your industry sees your resume, especially the booming company listed that was your previous company, they offer you 15% more than you were making with a 5% bonus right there on the spot. This is even *more* than the higher-than-industry standard that you were already making.

Was your boss still right?

Right now, there is no true free market. Well not directly anyway. The NCAA has shut down that possibility for the players atleast. But the NCAA sells these players images and likenesses, and licenses their performances, making loads of money without any restriction. THIS is the free market value of the athletes, how much they are actually worth, and the players only make a scholarship. The NCAA makes hundreds of millions and climbing.

[MeMyself&Me]

How do you know he's right though? Do you really believe that college football players and basketball players couldn't make more money than they are allowed to make now if free market were allowed to decide things? Wouldn't they be able to get marketing deals, work full time jobs, license their own image and likeness for more than just the value of a scholarship? Do you think that Cam Newton could not have gotten $200,000, or more, if it were perfectly allowed by the rules of the NCAA?

In the case of my scenario, let's say you tell your boss to stuff it and go looking for another job. As soon as the first company in your industry sees your resume, especially the booming company listed that was your previous company, they offer you 15% more than you were making with a 5% bonus right there on the spot. This is even *more* than the higher-than-industry standard that you were already making.

Was your boss still right?

Right now, there is no true free market. Well not directly anyway. The NCAA has shut down that possibility for the players atleast. But the NCAA sells these players images and likenesses, and licenses their performances, making loads of money without any restriction. THIS is the free market value of the athletes, how much they are actually worth, and the players only make a scholarship. The NCAA makes hundreds of millions and climbing.

Free market is at work. The NCAA restricts what member schools can do for the purpose of competitive equality but the players can look elsewhere if they wanted to because NCAA members schools aren't the only option. There's the NAIA for example. I don't think that would accomplish 'better overall compensation' though or the best players would be going there already. There's always the NFL which is available once you're three years removed from high school and you do see players opt for that once they are eligible AND if they're good enough but most aren't even with three years of college play behind them. There's Arena and Canadian football (don't know their age limitations). There's also the semi-pro leagues which I know will take kids right out of high school.

You can try to explain away why players don't choose those options but it still comes down to this: NCAA member schools are the best option for the vast majority of football players coming out of high school, even with only that measly academic scholarship you don't place much value on. But don't act like that's their only choice. It's just so much better than any other option that we tend to forget about them.

[vtsooner21]

The world isn't fair, never was & never gonna be. College is the time obtain the skills and knowledge needed before entering your profession. Coaches took advantage of the opportunity college athletics provided, got their degree and are now profiting from it. Sam Bradford took advantage of his opportunity on the field, honed his craft, is now profiting from it and got a degree to ensure he knows how to handle the money he's making. Dean Blevins took advantage of his scholarship opportunity, got his degree and is now profiting from it. Jason White took advantage of his scholarship, got his degree, and is now profiting from it - because he would not have the opportunities and success he has now if he hadn't played college football.

College athletes are being compensated enough. It is up to them to take advantage of the opportunity provided, increase their knowledge and skill and find a way to profit from it. That's what college is all about.
Amen!!!!

[ouflak]

The world isn't fair, never was & never gonna be. College is the time obtain the skills and knowledge needed before entering your profession. Coaches took advantage of the opportunity college athletics provided, got their degree and are now profiting from it. Sam Bradford took advantage of his opportunity on the field, honed his craft, is now profiting from it and got a degree to ensure he knows how to handle the money he's making. Dean Blevins took advantage of his scholarship opportunity, got his degree and is now profiting from it. Jason White took advantage of his scholarship, got his degree, and is now profiting from it - because he would not have the opportunities and success he has now if he hadn't played college football.

Amen!!!!

Right. So why is it that basketball players can start making millions at the age of 18 in the NBA? Hockey players at 18 in the NHL? Female tennis players at the age of 13 in the WTA? Why aren't journalists for these sports required to have degrees? Is it because there is just something so special about these sports that the athletes are fantastically more mature than football players and, due to the nature of these sports, more educated, so that they can start profiting from their athletic endeavors pretty much immediately? Perhaps these sports require more 'skill and knowledge'?

I suppose part of the answer is that the world is unfair. But whatever the answer is, I'm pretty sure the answer to that has nothing to do with a college degree or 'honing ones craft'.

College football is worth billions and climbing. Allowing these athletes a piece of the action means potentially cutting into the NCAA's bottom line. Period.

Crazy world scenario:

Let's say the NCAA gets an extraordinary one-in-a-lifetime contract opportunity to take over woman's tennis until they are the age of 21. The NCAA only has to pay these player's room, board, and travel costs, and maybe pay for their medical insurance. The vast amount of money these women generate, through tournament play, endorsements, etc... goes to the NCAA. All the NCAA has to do is sign a contract. Would the NCAA respond:


"No. These ladies are hard working professionals, let's just let them take their opportunities and make the best of them on their own. We don't want any of that action."
"Hmmmm. Well we do all have college degrees and MBA's. It would be best for these women if we made all of that money for them. Give them time to hone their skills as athletes and models, and when they've reached a mature age, well then, they can try their hand at making some of that money themselves."
"Wow! That's hundreds of millions of dollars a year! Thank you God! Where do we sign????!!!!"


If you really think that anybody at the NCAA gives a crap about a amateurism, or a college degree, or 'honing ones craft', then perhaps you could get them explain the thus ironic 10.8 billion dollar contract they just signed for the basketball tournament. Although it's only speculation, their latest endorsement deal for these athlete's images and likenesses is estimated to be worth an even billion dollars over the next 6 years (the previous verified deal was worth at least 500 million, expired (renewal/extension?) just this last April).

This is all about the bottom line. If the accountant's and MBA's get together, crunch the numbers, and realize that letting the players work full time and make up to $100,000 in endorsements on their own, will in fact somehow increase their own revenues and profits, then the rules will change faster than you can say "HOLY ****!" much less "Amen!".

[5noubus]

My dad and I talk about this a lot. I do nor know the schedule of these kids or how much food credit they get or anything. I would assume that if they are practicing, studying, working out and following the rules they have very little time to actually have a job.

I feel that they should get compensated in the form if "work study" like practice is their job. If they practice 3 hours a day they get minium wage for the 3 hours of practice. Or whatever. I follow k stills on twitter and I remember reading he was starving and he would be so glad when practice starts and they got 3 meals a day. And that he was broke - that's just sad.
Could he get a job all summer and still work out - maybe but it looks like to me if it is impossible to work during football season they should get some sort of stipen or something.

[MeMyself&Me]

Right. So why is it that basketball players can start making millions at the age of 18 in the NBA? Hockey players at 17 in the NHL? Female tennis players at the age of 13 in the WTA? Why aren't journalists for these sports required to have degrees? Is it because there is just something so special about these sports that the athletes are fantastically more mature than football players and, due to the nature of these sports, more educated, so that they can start profiting from their athletic endeavors pretty much immediately? Perhaps these sports require more 'skill and knowledge'?

I suppose part of the answer is that the world is unfair. But whatever the answer is, I'm pretty sure the answer to that has nothing to do with a college degree or 'honing ones craft'.

College football is worth billions and climbing. Allowing these athletes a piece of the action means potentially cutting into the NCAA's bottom line. Period.

Crazy world scenario:

Let's say the NCAA gets an extraordinary one-in-a-lifetime contract opportunity to take over woman's tennis until they are the age of 21. The NCAA only has to pay these player's room, board, and travel costs, and maybe pay for their medical insurance. The vast amount of money these women generate, through tournament play, endorsements, etc... goes to the NCAA. All the NCAA has to do is sign a contract. Would the NCAA respond:


"No. These ladies are hard working professionals, let's just let them take their opportunities and make the best of them on their own. We don't want any of that action."
"Hmmmm. Well we do all have college degrees and MBA's. It would be best for these women if we made all of that money for them. Give them time to hone their skills as athletes and models, and when they've reached a mature age, well then, they can try their hand at making some of that money themselves."
"Wow! That's hundreds of millions of dollars a year! Thank you God! Where do we sign????!!!!"


If you really think that anybody at the NCAA gives a crap about a amateurism, or a college degree, or 'honing ones craft', then perhaps you could get them explain the thus ironic 10.8 billion dollar contract they just signed for the basketball tournament. Although it's only speculation, their latest endorsement deal for these athlete's images and likenesses is estimated to be worth an even billion dollars over the next 6 years (the previous verified deal was worth at least 500 million, expired (renewal/extension?) just this last April).

This is all about the bottom line. If the accountant's and MBA's get together, crunch the numbers, and realize that letting the players work full time and make up to $100,000 in endorsements on their own, will in fact somehow increase their own revenues and profits, then the rules will change faster than you can say "HOLY ****!" much less "Amen!".

It's hard to take you seriously when you act like the NCAA is the reason football players can't play in the NFL until they're three years removed from high school or that basketball players can make millions at 18, 17 in the NHL and what not. The pro leagues decide that. Really has nothing to do with NCAA or whether the NCAA should pay athletes.

The big thing you are forgetting is college is a stepping stone for better things. If a player is good enough to get endorsements, he'll get that $100,000 grand and more AFTER college. Also, what you're asking for would destroy college football. Just think how the "endorsement" money would actually work, who would get it, and who wouldn't.

[ouflak]

It's hard to take you seriously when you act like the NCAA is the reason football players can't play in the NFL until they're three years removed from high school or that basketball players can make millions at 18, 18 in the NHL and what not. The pro leagues decide that. Really has nothing to do with NCAA or whether the NCAA should pay athletes.


I did not imply this. The poster who I was referring to (quoting) implied this. I actually jumped down his throat on this fallacy. Read it again. But I will summarize since my post was bit long:

In my opinion you don't need the NCAA to make all of that money for the athletes just because those working for the NCAA, or are otherwise affiliated with college football (coaches, journalists, etc...), have degrees and what not. The athletes can make all of this money just fine for themselves. Here are some examples... (see my post above). Sorry if that got muddled.

The original poster wants us to assume that age, or education, or that 'honing your craft' nonsense actually should restrict an athlete's ability/right to make money off of their own abilities. Yet it one breath, I can list several glaring counterexamples to that assumption.



The big thing you are forgetting is college is a stepping stone for better things. If a player is good enough to get endorsements, he'll get that $100,000 grand and more AFTER college.

For .01% of college football players, sure. The rest, not so much... But while that 'rest' are still playing college ball, they could make loads. And I think the NCAA still wouldn't do so bad themselves honestly.



Also, what you're asking for would destroy college football. Just think how the "endorsement" money would actually work, who would get it, and who wouldn't.

Right now the NCAA gets it all to the tune of hundreds of millions a year. I'm guessing they'd get a bit less if the players could earn this for themselves (but not necessarily. There could be a knock-on effect). Hence the rules against them getting any at all. Just protecting the bottom line.

[MeMyself&Me]

Wait, are you saying players should be allowed to seek endorsements or are you saying the NCAA should pay endorsements?

To the former, that was what I was refering to because that is what it sounded like you were saying. THAT would ruin college football. T-Boon could endorse the entire OSU football team to the max limit and make it known to all recruits that he intended to do so. How would that do for competitive balance?

To the latter, it's not possible because you'd have to do it for non-revenue sports too. Even if you want to find a way to make an exception for revenue sports, you'd still have to have equal compensation for women due to title 9.


Bottom line is that all that is beside the point. It's a very good situation for the atheletes as it is. Even for the ones that don't make the NFL. They just have to take the opporunities that are in front of them.

[MeMyself&Me]

And as to the guy you quoted. I have no problem with what he said. He's right. You use college to prepare for your future which is exaclty what he said.

[ouflak]

And as to the guy you quoted. I have no problem with what he said. He's right. You use college to prepare for your future which is exaclty what he said.

Just wanted to come to this point real quick. Why do you think this 'preparation' to make millions of dollars playing sports is not necessary for any other sport except football? What intangible quality (well, perhaps very tangible since it's so many sports) do all of these other athletes playing Major League Baseball, in the NBA, in the NHL, on the WTA tour, have that football players do not have? Is it maturity? Inner strength? Money smarts? Just plain overall intelligence? Maybe football is harder? Or maybe it's easier?

It is certainly not, as the poster you agree with states, education, or 'honing-your-skills'. Not at these ages (13 - 18 years old). No, definitely not. Yet they make millions upon millions upon millions. Just like the NCAA does. So what is it? What's the difference?

[MeMyself&Me]

I didn't say college was a preparation to make millions as an athelete. Most don't. But college is a place to prepare for your future, whatever that future is.

[Soonerfan88]

I don't know how you ever got an implication from my post that the NCAA forces anyone to go to college or prevents them from playing football. Please quote the exact phrase which gave you that impression. Football players are not required to go to college. They can market their services with the CFL, UFL, or AFL if they don't like the terms of a NCAA scholarship. As for getting a degree or preparing yourself for a career, a very small percentage of football players on scholarship actually make it to the NFL so they need another plan and that scholarship gives them a tremendous advantage. I simply highlighted those advantages and showed how these student-athletes profited from their time in college football. I did this in response to the post ranting about everyone profiting from their play except them.

As for all that money you talk about the NCAA keeping, it's already been discussed in this thread. Most goes back to the schools for facilities upgrades, academics enhancements, and funds to support those with low incomes. If you want to get in depth, here is the link:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/46f776004e0d547d9ef9fe1ad6fc8b25/2010-11+Revenue+Distribution+Plan+%28Current%29+%28Revi sions%29.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=46f776004e0d547d9ef9fe1ad6fc8b25